Peter Is Not The Rock!

[LittleLambofJesus]

You quote the Septuagint around these threads and you get accused of misquoting Scripture.

Harmonizing it is a lot of fun

Jeremiah 7:34 And I cause to cease from cities of Y@huwdah, and from streets of Y@ruwshalaim voice of elation, and voice of rejoicing, voice of bridegroom, and voice of bride, that to desolation the Land shall become.

Reve 18:23 and light of a lamp shall not no be appearing in thee still; and Voice/Sound of bridegroom/numfiou <3566> and of bride/numfhV <3565> not no should be being heard in thee still; that the merchants of thee were the great ones/grandees of the land, that in the sorcery of thee were deceived all the Nations,

 

[WarriorAngel]

You quote the Septuagint around these threads and you get accused of misquoting Scripture.

OR accused of reciting apocrapha.

 

[beamishboy]

So how did you study LLOJ?
I am curious.

Did you do so on your own?


Actually that is a mistake to suggest.
Denomination's are branches from the original.

denomination


• noun 1 a recognized branch of a church or religion.

Since all churches after the reform broke off the Church, then they are denominations from that Church which was the original Church.
Therefore classified as branches of the single Church...altho technically they do not see themselves as such.

The original churches are those mentioned in the NT. Not "one" church but many. At one time, they were 7 churches. The RCC for all its protestations, is not the original. Just read the NT and then read RC dogma and you are sure to see how very much at variance the two are. The RCC is without a shred of doubt a denomination.

 

[beamishboy]

Regarding Unam Sanctam, I'm still waiting for any evidence that it is not as the Catholic Encyclopedia describes it -- "The statements concerning the relations between the spiritual and the secular power are of a purely historical character, so far as they do not refer to the nature of the spiritual power, and are based on the actual conditions of medieval Western Europe."

If you really must quote the Catholic Encyclopaedia, I will (sigh) have to do the same:

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says: "The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for the attainment of eternal salvation, the position of the Pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the Pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation."

But I will do even better!!! I will quote the source - the Unam Sanctam itself:

"we confess with simplicity that outside of her [the RC church] there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins"
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

I mean really, in 2000 years of church documents, that one line is the best you can do?

I've only picked one RC Papal Bull, the Unam Sanctam, and already there is more than "one line". I have books (thanks to the wonderful recommendation of my wonderful guide and friend in CF) that take to tasks many other RC writings but they are not relevant here.

And if you have one line that implies that, and hundreds of others that state otherwise, how can you justify raising it high and loud as being reflective of the Catholic church?

We won't go to the hundreds or thousands others that I have in my arsenal against the RCC but that one document, the Unam Sanctam happens to be a Papal Bull. If it's wrong, say so! Don't hedge!!! If it's right, stand by it! But that you can't do because we will call into question papal authority, infallibility, reliability, etc if you say the Unam Sanctam is wrong. That is why there is so much hedging, so much skirting about. You don't dare say the Unam Sanctam is dead wrong and yet you want to deny the proclamations within that Papal Bull. You want to have your cake and eat it. But you can't have it both ways.

And thinking of that BeamishBoy, have you ever read the Chronicles of Narnia?[/quote]

 

[beamishboy]

No, it cannot be done.
And regarding the EO, this is why they cannot define or explain the doctrines because they have no single leader to fall under who would keep all the shepherds under one roof of doctrinal agreement.

Which is why they do not define or explain doctrines.
The standard answer is - it remains a mystery.
And technically, even if explained, it remains a mystery, but with an explanation it does clarify the problems and removes heresies, which if we are honest - the Church through out the entirety of history [including in the councils] has indeed defined and explained the concepts many hold onto even today.
Such as the Trinity, Hypostatic Union, Incarnation, etc etc
Without which - we could claim it remains a mystery - but no, the Church put it an explanation! Which is the reason for the existence of the Church - to make known what God wants and Who God is.

When the Church schismed - it is at that point when the East lost a chief leader to look up to, that all the Bishops [Patriarchs] were lost to define the doctrines as was the custom prior to the schism...when referring to the Pope to make it 'finito' and acceptable.

Its just something i have pondered... and i think an honest hard look at this would probably give many folks a moment of pause and hopefully a deeper prayer for unity.

Thanks for that information about the Orthodox church. The beamishboy is writing a huge book called The Definitive History of the Roman and Orthodox Churches - A Complete History of These Churches and How They have Departed from Apostolic Teachings but I'm having trouble with exactly what stand the Orthodox church takes. Apparently there are many many DIFFERENT Oral Traditions. Thank God there is only one Bible. I suppose churches that depend only on that one reliable Bible have it good.

Thanks again for your insight into the Orthodox churches. I need as much input as I can get.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The original churches are those mentioned in the NT. Not "one" church but many. At one time, they were 7 churches. The RCC for all its protestations, is not the original. Just read the NT and then read RC dogma and you are sure to see how very much at variance the two are. The RCC is without a shred of doubt a denomination.

Let me see...
Do you have Romans in your Bible?
I know I do.

Another question...
How often does Paul teach each one they are not one body - but seperate churches?

Just curious.

 

[narnia59]

We won't go to the hundreds or thousands others that I have in my arsenal against the RCC but that one document, the Unam Sanctam happens to be a Papal Bull. If it's wrong, say so! Don't hedge!!! If it's right, stand by it! But that you can't do because we will call into question papal authority, infallibility, reliability, etc if you say the Unam Sanctam is wrong. That is why there is so much hedging, so much skirting about. You don't dare say the Unam Sanctam is dead wrong and yet you want to deny the proclamations within that Papal Bull. You want to have your cake and eat it. But you can't have it both ways.

There would not be an issue if the church wanted to say Unam Sanctam is dead wrong, as much as you may wish to portray it otherwise.

Quick lesson on papal infallibility -- it doesn't apply to everything the Pope says, does, or writes. It doesn't even apply to every document he issues as part of the official office of Pope.

It only applies to those documents he issues "ex-cathedra", and this is not one. The number of papal documents that applies to over the last 2000 years is quite small.

The infallibility accorded to church councils is another thing entirely.

If you have been reading books about Catholicism that have given you another impression, well then again, I would suggest if you want information about a topic, you go to the source.

I am sure you will find some way to spin around that, and it will be interesting to watch you.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Let me see...
Do you have Romans in your Bible?
I know I do.

Another question...
How often does Paul teach each one they are not one body - but seperate churches?

Just curious.

We are one Body with many Members. Want me to show all the verses where Paul uses the plural for Assemblies.
Hey, lookie here! My POPE telling John to send a message to the Bishops in 7 churches! I am of the 6th one

Reve 1:11 saying: "[*I am the A and O, the first and the last and] which thou are beholding write! into a scrollet and send! to the seven Out-Calleds [*the in asia] into Efeson, and into Smurnan, and into Pergamon and into Quateira and into Sardei and into Filadelfeian and into Laodikeian"

 

[prodromos]

If accountability only exists within silos (however many there are) and not universally, I'm not sure I see the EO as one church.

You ignore the fact that the 'silos' are accountable to each other and each recognises the other. You can see this happening today where the so called 'Macedonian Orthodox' Church split off from the Serbian Church to further a nationalistic agenda to create a 'Macedonian' consciousness. They are not recognised by or in communion with any other Orthodox Church. More recently there has been a synod held on the subject of ecumenism attended by representatives of most of the Orthodox Churches

My perspective is that they are one as long as nobody tries to move in any direction, but to make any type of shift, like a more exhaustive doctrinal statement just can't happen.

And I could be very wrong about that, and would be interested in seeing evidence to the contrary.

There have been many local councils where the decisions of those councils have been accepted by the Church at large. As long as the decisions do not diverge from that which has been handed down there is no problem, however making such doctrinal statements must be in response to a particular need, combating heresy for example, for which there has not been a need for a long time in the Orthodox Church.

John

 

[AmericanCatholic]

The RCC for all its protestations, is not the original. Just read the NT and then read RC dogma and you are sure to see how very much at variance the two are. The RCC is without a shred of doubt a denomination.

That's not an accurate representation of Catholic theology. This may shed some light on the inner workings of the Church.

 

[narnia59]

[/size]That's not an accurate representation of Catholic theology. This may shed some light on the inner workings of the Church.

Seems to not be of high import.

 

[beamishboy]

Let me see...
Do you have Romans in your Bible?
I know I do.

Another question...
How often does Paul teach each one they are not one body - but seperate churches?

Just curious.

Like the early NT churches, we believe that we are one body but many churches. We have Romans in the Bible but if you have the cheek to suggest those Romans were anything like the RCC, I'll roll on the floor laughing. They and the RCC are as different as chalk and cheese. Just read Romans and see for yourself.

 

[beamishboy]

There would not be an issue if the church wanted to say Unam Sanctam is dead wrong, as much as you may wish to portray it otherwise.

Quick lesson on papal infallibility -- it doesn't apply to everything the Pope says, does, or writes. It doesn't even apply to every document he issues as part of the official office of Pope.

It only applies to those documents he issues "ex-cathedra", and this is not one. The number of papal documents that applies to over the last 2000 years is quite small.

The infallibility accorded to church councils is another thing entirely.

If you have been reading books about Catholicism that have given you another impression, well then again, I would suggest if you want information about a topic, you go to the source.

I am sure you will find some way to spin around that, and it will be interesting to watch you.

I don't need a quick lesson on the RC innovation of "infallibility". If I'm going to write my book, surely this must be a point I must be familiar with.

You say I spin myself round things. But surely any reasonable person on the Clapham omnibus must be able to see that you and the RCs in this thread are the ones who worm your way here and there wanting to have your cake and eat it at the same time; not me. The beamishboy is by no stretch of the imagination guilty of this worming and spinning. Answer the question: Is the Unam Sanctam right or wrong. If it's wrong, say so. If not, then be upright enough to accept its contents. Don't skirt round what it says and tell yourself the Catholic Encyclopaedia says this or that. See what the contents of the Unam Sanctam are and READ THEM even if you wish to reject my direct quotation from this Papal Bull of the Holy See.

 

[narnia59]

I don't need a quick lesson on the RC innovation of "infallibility". If I'm going to write my book, surely this must be a point I must be familiar with.

You say I spin myself round things. But surely any reasonable person on the Clapham omnibus must be able to see that you and the RCs in this thread are the ones who worm your way here and there wanting to have your cake and eat it at the same time; not me. The beamishboy is by no stretch of the imagination guilty of this worming and spinning. Answer the question: Is the Unam Sanctam right or wrong. If it's wrong, say so. If not, then be upright enough to accept its contents. Don't skirt round what it says and tell yourself the Catholic Encyclopaedia says this or that. See what the contents of the Unam Sanctam are and READ THEM even if you wish to reject my direct quotation from this Papal Bull of the Holy See.

I don't reject your direct quotation. I reject your incorrect interpretation of what it means and how it is applied. I certainly have no obligation to accept your interpretation, although you certainly seem to think I do.

But even if I thought it was wrong, or even if the church came out and declared tomorrow it was wrong, it has no impact on papal infallibility and its application, because there is no correlation between this document and papal infallibility. To try to make one shows a pretty basic lack of understanding of the subject matter you are trying to expound upon. It would seem to me that speaking to things correctly might be important to you. Then again, maybe not.

It would also seem to me that there are enough legitimate theological differences to discuss that you might want to limit yourself to those. That would depend on if you want anybody with any real knowledge to actually take you seriously of course.

 

[beamishboy]

That would depend on if you want anybody with any real knowledge to actually take you seriously of course.

Of course any one can tell that it would be in your interest and that of your church not to take the beamishboy seriously. But the beamishboy will still write his book and publish it when he's turned into beamishman. The world will think differently of a highly scholastic book that's written by the beamishman than if it were written by the beamishboy. Such is the way of the world and its prejudices. The beamishboy will present a copy of his book to the Pope who I'm sure, if he reads the book cover to cover, will recant and change his position.

 

[narnia59]

Of course any one can tell that it would be in your interest and that of your church not to take the beamishboy seriously. But the beamishboy will still write his book and publish it when he's turned into beamishman. The world will think differently of a highly scholastic book that's written by the beamishman than if it were written by the beamishboy. Such is the way of the world and its prejudices. The beamishboy will present a copy of his book to the Pope who I'm sure, if he reads the book cover to cover, will recant and change his position.

Well, now that gave me a good laugh out loud. I definitely need to call it a night.

 

[Photini]

The beamishboy will present a copy of his book to the Pope who I'm sure, if he reads the book cover to cover, will recant and change his position.

Wow. Very lofty aspirations. Good luck.

 

[archierieus]

I have followed with interest the discussion about 'Unam Sanctam.' I also have read the Catholic Encyclopedia article about it, and have cited to that article in another post. Here is what it says:

""In the registers, on the margin of the text of the record, the last sentence is noted as its real definition: "Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis" (It is here stated that for salvation it is necessary that every human creature be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff). This definition, the meaning and importance of which are clearly evident from the connection with the first part on the necessity of the one Church for salvation, and on the pope as the one supreme head of the Church, expresses the necessity for everyone who wishes to attain salvation of belonging to the Church, and therefore of being subject to the authority of the pope in all religious matters. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, and it was declared in the same sense by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, in 1516: "De necessitate esse salutis omnes Christi fideles Romano Pontifici subesse" (That it is of the necessity of salvation for all Christ's faithful to be subject to the Roman pontiff)."

Apparently, this has been the 'constant teaching of the Church.' Note the reference to the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran. As well, the text of the Bull is rich with citations to other Church authorities, including Bernard of Clairvaux. The author was not presenting anything new! Fast forward: I also recall statements in recent years by both John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger. The official position of the RCC STILL is that non-Catholics, Protestants like me, are heretics and that in order to have salvation, we must convert to Catholicism and 'accept the supremacy of the Roman pontiff.' That is one of the reasons for the huge concern. Now, if the RCC were to formally recant that teaching, to clearly state that practitioners in other faiths who accept Jesus as Savior may have salvation--which most of the rest of the churches acknowledge, by the way; then perhaps there would be a huge sigh of relief.

Dave

 

[lionroar0]

I just love it when people tell us our teachings.

Peace

 

[beamishboy]

I have followed with interest the discussion about 'Unam Sanctam.' I also have read the Catholic Encyclopedia article about it, and have cited to that article in another post. Here is what it says:

""In the registers, on the margin of the text of the record, the last sentence is noted as its real definition: "Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis" (It is here stated that for salvation it is necessary that every human creature be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff). This definition, the meaning and importance of which are clearly evident from the connection with the first part on the necessity of the one Church for salvation, and on the pope as the one supreme head of the Church, expresses the necessity for everyone who wishes to attain salvation of belonging to the Church, and therefore of being subject to the authority of the pope in all religious matters. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, and it was declared in the same sense by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, in 1516: "De necessitate esse salutis omnes Christi fideles Romano Pontifici subesse" (That it is of the necessity of salvation for all Christ's faithful to be subject to the Roman pontiff)."

Apparently, this has been the 'constant teaching of the Church.' Note the reference to the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran. As well, the text of the Bull is rich with citations to other Church authorities, including Bernard of Clairvaux. The author was not presenting anything new! Fast forward: I also recall statements in recent years by both John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger. The official position of the RCC STILL is that non-Catholics, Protestants like me, are heretics and that in order to have salvation, we must convert to Catholicism and 'accept the supremacy of the Roman pontiff.' That is one of the reasons for the huge concern. Now, if the RCC were to formally recant that teaching, to clearly state that practitioners in other faiths who accept Jesus as Savior may have salvation--which most of the rest of the churches acknowledge, by the way; then perhaps there would be a huge sigh of relief.

Dave

Excellent post!!! Good research!!!! This will enter into The Beamishboy's Bull! Doesn't sound nice though. Anyway, I'm glad Narnia is sleeping now. If she had read archierieus' above excellent post, she would not be able to sleep. In any event, she must revise her stand on what the RCC teaches.

I also hope Orthodox Christians will read the above carefully and not foolishly defend the RCs the way some of them seem to be doing automatically and without thought. We call a spade a spade. We have irreconcilable differences - let's not pretend otherwise.